Washington Post/New York Times Ponder Affirmative Action for the Ugly


A liberal nightmare is a fear that they will run out of victim categories. It almost happened with American prosperity in the 50s. But they finally beat it. And now it’s time to expand the categories and start the ugly affirmative action lawsuits.

The galloping injustice of “lookism” has not escaped psychologists, economists, sociologists, and legal scholars. Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode’s 2010 book, “The Beauty Bias,” lamented “the injustice of appearance in life and law,” while University of Texas, Austin economist Daniel Hamermesh’s 2011 “Beauty Pays,” recently out in paperback, traced the concrete benefits of attractiveness, including a $230,000 lifetime earnings advantage over the unattractive.

Some have proposed legal remedies including designating unattractive people as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for the homely, or compensating disfigured but otherwise healthy people in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind interviews that take attraction out of job selection. There’s promising evidence from psychology that good old-fashioned consciousness-raising has a role to play, too.

That’s from a Washington Post Ideas piece. Who are the “some”. Well they include Daniel Hamermesh in a New York Times op-ed from 2011.

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

In an age when Obama Inc is demanding that movie theaters accommodate the blind.. why not?

Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

So ugliness is now a disability?

Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

Who would benefit from affirmative action for the ugly?

For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population

What is this really about? The money.

“Ugliness” is not a personal trait that many people choose to embrace; those whom we classify as protected might not be willing to admit that they are ugly. But with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000 in lost lifetime earnings, there’s a large enough incentive to do so.

If we can get hordes of fake Indians, I’m sure we’ll get lots of people who insist that ugliness ruined their lives.

Bringing anti-discrimination lawsuits is also costly, and few potential plaintiffs could afford to do so. But many attorneys would be willing to organize classes of plaintiffs to overcome these costs, just as they now do in racial-discrimination and other lawsuits.

This is America. This is America on Obama.


  • DogmaelJones1

    I know Daniel isn’t making this up. It’s the logical conclusion of the John Rawls theory that everyone should be given an even chance, even the ugly, even if the attractive must be handicapped and points deducted because they’re attractive. The thorny question for the newly-designated “protected class” will be: Do they really, really want to admit they’re ugly?

    • sirelton

      The linchpin is the need to further strengthen the State to deal with such “inequalities”, right?

    • laura rubin

      disfigurement yes. but just Un-attactive? i may consider myself ugly these days, but who is to judge? but for $230,000 i would work the system. gee, have you looked outside lately? there are more morbidly obese un-human looking people then ever. matter of fact, its the norm. @one time they were on exibit in the circus freak section (way back this was the side show): worlds fattest man, worlds fattest woman. been to an airport in flyover lately? look inside a walmart (youtube). do they qualify? now they are the majority. yes their bodies are “disfigured” in my opinion. i am against payouts! that brings us back to who is the judge in this perverse talent contest? this is a lawyers OP, as usual.

      • DogmaelJones1

        See this Seinfeld link (40 seconds) that underscores your comments. Also any Wal-Mart fashion parade on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS_jdcV5QsM

        • laura rubin

          ugly is the new normal. well, obese is, there you go. affirmative action for pretty people!! i will be the judge. seriously, i think all this infantile stupidity is to divert america from what is really going on. i mean all we read about in frontpage mag. most people are narcissist, dumbed down, spaced out mindless low information idiots. now it is easier for marxism to take over. i have now lost my sence of humor.

  • Race_Dissident

    More subterfuge to advance Leftists beyond their natural station in life.

  • David Axlerod

    Where do I sign up?

  • Harold of the forest

    I am ugly, does this mean I get a handicap parking permit? Yippee!

  • chevychase

    Can’t you recognize a put on?

  • OblivionDeHavilland

    do i get more if i’m stupid too

  • Boots

    Great… now we’ll have lawyers out trolling for the ugly so they inundate the legal system with frivolous lawsuits from uglo-Americans. But it isn’t all bad… at least with a potential financial payoff on the horizon we’ll be able to get more people to admit they’re ugly.

  • Bert

    Please folks no jokes! We do not want to ridicule the left on this issue and hurt them by having everyone laugh at them. And what about hurting people’s feeling by calling them ugly or getting punched in the nose if we call someone ugly? We need leftist intellectuals to set up a national study on all this to recommend new legislation and naturally to be funded by government grants.

  • Zionist Libertarian

    I take issue with the term “ugly”. The proper term is “aesthetically challenged”.